HomeMy WebLinkAbout012 07 00LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
December 7, 2000
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Land Use and Development Commission held in the City
Municipal Building December 7, 2000.
Present: Chairman Pete Anderson; ; Commission Members; Myrna Cain, Wally Wright, Mary
Harker, Nolan Briscoe, Ray Rosen, Dusty Whited, Gayle Anderson; Council Representative Kent
Kearns; Attorney Tom Holmes; City Staff. Steve Smart, and Larry Kohntopp, and Secretary
Myrna Crapo.
Pete Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Chairman Anderson asked for approval of the November 2, 2000 minutes. Wally Wright
moved to accept the minutes as mailed. Mary Harker seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Chairman Anderson asked if any commission member had a conflict of interest. There was none.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. An application by Crystal Bay Corporation, Con Jensen, President, 812 E. Clark,
Pocatello, Idaho, for a conditional use application to allow Twin Homes at 5912, 5892,
10,11.1 5882 Eve. Property is presently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1).
Terry Jensen, 8294 West Buckskin, asked to withdraw their application.
2.An application by NTCH-Idaho, Inc., 233 N. Main Street, Pocatello, Idaho 83204, for a
Conditional Use Permit for cell tower site at 4800 block on Hawthorne. Property is
zoned (R-2) Limited Residential.
Chairman Anderson read the city ordinance on what the Commission considers on a
Conditional Use Application.
Chairman Anderson asked for any additional comments from the city staff. There was
none.
The commission discussed:
1. The height of the proposed tower.
2. The type of tower.
Dan McKinner, 100 S Arthur, Suite 102, Pocatello, they are a FCC wireless carrier. The
site location is on Hawthorne Road. They want to provide coverage to the Pine Ridge
Mall and to the City of Chubbuck. The property is 100 X 100 feet. It will have chain link
fence and barbed wire on the top. The pole is a 150' monopole, with the antenna on top
of that. Sign Teck did a third party survey.
Any interference should not affect TV, house phones, etc. The tower can be co-
locateable. The other cell towers in the area are expensive to co -locate on, they can't
locate on any in the area.
QQ
Land Use and Development Commission
December 7, 2000
Page 2
Science Tech's review was expensive, $2500.00. Mr. McKinner read a portion of the
review. The sight is needed for Clear Talk. They have attempted to identify other sites,
but have not been successful.
The commission discussed:
1. The cell tower ordinance requiring towers not to be located in a residential area
2. The tower being able to be moved with in the area. They could move up to a quarter of
a mile in any direction.
3. They have looked at other locations.
Chairman Anderson opened the meeting to public hearing for public comment.
Allen Martin, 546 Boyd, is not in favor of the tower. He doesn't want the land to go
commercial. The area is looking like a commercial area now. He wants the area to be
kept residential.
Wayne Roderick, 4920 Hawthorne, read the petition signed by the neighbors. He has
done research on the internet and explained what he had found. He does not want it in
the area.
Don Neves, 4815 Hawthorne Road, It is a residential area. There needs to be some other
site that is feasible. The only acceptable solution is no tower in the area
Jon Jones, 4915 Hawthorne, he doesn't want it in the area. The homes are nice homes.
We need to decide what the area should be like and keep it that way.
Preston Morris, 4909 Hawthorne, he is within 150' and he objects to it.
Brett Carlsen, 4941 Hawthorne, he doesn't want it in the area, it doesn't belongs there.
Wally Smith, 4836 Hawthorne, he believes it should be a commercial zone and was in
favor of it.
The public hearing was closed.
Don McKinner: They attempted to work within the guideline of the ordinance and their
specifications.
The meeting was brought to the commission for a discussions:
1. The ordinance does not allow cell towers in a residential zone.
2. The ordinance for cell towers
3. Other places where they could locate the tower
Wally Wright moved to deny the applicant NTCH- Idaho 233 N. Main request for a
Conditional Use Permit for cell tower site at 4800 block on Hawthorne. Myrna Cain
seconded. Roll call vote. Myrna Cain, yes; Ray Rosen, yes; Wally Wright, yes; Mary
Harker, yes; Nolan Briscoe, yes; Dusty Whited, yes; Gayle Anderson, no; Pete Anderson,
yes.
Land Use and development Commission
December 7, 2000
Page 3
3. An application by Wally Smith, 4836 Hawthorne Road, Chubbuck, Idaho for a change
of Land Use District to General Commercial (C-2). Property is presently zoned Limited
Residential, (R-2).
Wally Smith, 4836 Hawthorne, asked to withdraw his application.
4. Ron Dykman, 446 E. Chubbuck Road, Chubbuck, Idaho 83202, for a Change of Land
Use District at 446 E. Chubbuck Road to (C-1) Limited Commercial. Property is
presently zoned (R-2) Limited Residential.
Ron Dykman, 446 E. Chubbuck Road, wants to build his shop back there. He is currently
living there and wants to build a large shop for his concrete business. He feels the area
will be going Commercial.
Commission discussed:
1. Overhead doors in the back being done away with.
2. The height of the building will be 25' or more.
The meeting was opened for public comment.
Gary Chisum, 4856 Hawthorne, we need some commercial zoning in places other than
Yellowstone.
Wayne Hale, 4825 Whitaker, is concerned with what is allowed there. It will close off
the landscape to their western view. They are concerned about the time of day noise.
They are a residential area. The C-1 area has some things that is allowed that would be
obnoxious in their back yard.
Elaine Hale, 4825 Whitaker, is concerned about the depth of the lot.
The public hearing was closed and brought back to the public hearing for a discussion.
The commission discussed:
1. C-1 in the comprehensive plan
Ron Dykman, a number of commercial properties are there now that are very deep.
Several of the neighbors are now C-1.
Mary Harker moved to recommend to the City council the approval of Ron Dykman, 446
E. Chubbuck Road, request for a change of Land Use District to Limited Commercial (C-
1). Wally Wright seconded. Roll call vote:
Wright, yes; Mary Harker, yes; Nola} j(
yes; Pete Anderson, yes. �' I
Cain, yes; Ray Rosen, yes; Wally
; Dusty Whited, yes; Gayle Anderson,
11-11% Mary Harker moved to adjourn at 9:45 P*l� )Wright seconding.
Chairman
��,�0"10.01
CA
CITY OF CHUBBUCK
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONIlVIISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
This matter having come before the Land Use and Development Commission for public
hearing pursuant to public notice as required by law, on December 7, 2000, upon the application
of Ron Dykman (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a change in land use district for the real
property described on Exhibit "A" hereto from R-2 or Limited Residential to C-1 or Limited
Commercial, and the Land Use and Development Commission having heard testimony from
interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant has applied for a zone change from R-2 to C-1 for the real property more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto.
2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met.
3. The property in question is zoned R-2 or Limited Residential pursuant to the Land Use
Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as C-1 (Limited Commercial) in the duly adopted
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck.
5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan in Sections B, B(5), B(6) and B(8) and in Idaho Code Sections 67-6502 and
67-6508.
6. The requested change in land use district is not in conflict with the provisions of
existing zoning regulations or the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck.
7. The property in question is suitable for the proposed land use district, and such uses
would be compatible with existing land uses in the area.
8. Owners of adjacent properties have expressed approval of the proposed change in land
use district; although some adjacent owners are concerned about the impact and do not approve.
9. The requested zone change is reasonable to provide orderly development of the City,
and to promote economic values and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
blj chubbuck01.202
.-.� 10. It is in the best interests of the public that the proposed change in land use district be
granted.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Chubbuck Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6509(d) have been met.
2. The proposed change in land use district is reasonable and necessary to provide orderly
development of the City, and to promote economic values, and is not inconsistent with or
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
3. The proposed change in land use district is consistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck and the Local Planning
Act of 1975, as codified in Chapter 65 of Title 67 of the Idaho Code.
4. The requested change in Land Use District should be granted.
n 5. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8001 et seq., the Commission makes the
following findings with respect to the decision in this action:
A. This Action does not result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property.
B. This Action does not require the property owner to dedicate a portion of
the property or to grant an easement.
C. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of
the property.
D. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's
economic interest.
E. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership.
F. This Action does not serve the same purpose that would be served by
directly prohibiting the use or action; nor does the condition imposed substantially
advance such purpose.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
blj chubbuck01.202
DECISION
It is recommended that the application for a change in land use district to designate the
land described on Exhibit "A" be granted by the City Council.
DATED this'aC1 day of ` ` O�n,�9n— , 2001.
Use and Development Commission
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
blj chubbuck07.202
CITY OF CHUBBUCK
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
This matter having come before the Commission for public hearing pursuant to public
notice as required by law, on December 7, 2000, upon the application of NTCH-Idaho, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as "applicant") for a conditional use permit to put a cell tower on the real
property located in the 4800 block of Hawthorne Road and the Commission having heard
testimony from interested parties and being fully advised in the matter, now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit as particularly described above.
2. All legal requirements for notice of public hearing have been met.
3. The property in question is zoned R-2 (Limited Residential) pursuant to the Land Use
Ordinance of the City of Chubbuck.
4. The property is designated as R -I (Single Family Residential) in the duly adopted
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chubbuck.
n 5. Relevant criteria and standards for consideration of this application are set forth in
Idaho Code section 67-6512 and in Chubbuck Code section 18.28.040 (C).
6. The facts relevant to an evaluation of the relevant criteria and standards are as follows:
A. Numerous residents along Hawthorne Road oppose this application.
B. Siting a tower such as this in a residential area is discouraged by the Ordinance,
Chapter 18.13, Chubbuck Municipal Code,
C. Other sites may be available that are in commercial zones.
D. Allowing this permit could change the area from residential to commercial which is
opposed by the residents in appearance and by the comprehensive plan.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Land Use and
Development Commission hereby enters the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The use for which the permit is sought will be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
2. The permit sought will produce an adverse impact on the economic values of
10-4-1 adjacent properties.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 1
blj chubbuck01.201
- 1 �
A
r-� 3. The permit sought will not produce a negative impact on transportation facilities,
public utilities, schools, public parks, or the natural environment any greater than had the strict
terms of the Land Use Ordinance been complied with.
4. The noise and traffic conditions generated by the use for which the permit is
sought, when analyzed in conjunction with the noise and traffic conditions now existing does not
indicate that the permit should be denied.
5. The use for which the permit is sought shall work an unreasonable hardship upon
surrounding property owners by virtue of its physical natures or by the impact of changes made in
the landscape of the land.
6. The aesthetic qualities of the proposed use will not conflict with aesthetic qualities
of the surrounding lands.
7. The adverse impact of the proposed use on other development within the City has
not been minimized by Applicant as much as is reasonably possible.
8. Owners of adjacent property have not expressed approval of the issuance of the
requested conditional use permit.
9. The requested conditional use permit, if granted, should be maintained subject to
the conditions set forth below.
DECISION
1. The Land Use and Development Commission, pursuant to the foregoing, finds that the
request of the applicant should not be approved.
2. The conditional use permit requested by the Applicant is not granted, subject to the
foregoing conditions.
3. Takings. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8001 et seq., the Commission makes the
following findings with respect to the decision in this action:
A. This Action does not result in a permanent or temporary physical
occupation of private property.
B. This Action does not require the property owner to dedicate a portion of
the property or to grant an easement.
C. This Action does not deprive the owner of the property of all viable uses of
the property.
D. This Action does not have a significant impact on the landowner's
economic interest.
E. This Action does not deny a fundamental attribute of ownership.
F. This Action does not serve the same purpose that would be served by
directly prohibiting the use or action; nor does the condition imposed substantially
advance such purpose.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 2
blj chubbuck01.201
DATED this � da of � , 2001.
Y
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION - Page 3
blj chubbuck01.201